R. N. Mittal, J. - (1.) This Revision petition has been filed by the landlord against the order of the Appellate Authority dated Nov. 7, 1975.
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Sadhu Ram, landlord, filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of the tenant from the land on the ground that he required it for residence and business. It was contested by the tenant who controverted the allegations of the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the property was not a rented land but a residential building. He further held that the landlord required the premises bona fide for his residence. Consequently, he allowed the application for ejectment. The tenant went up in appeal before the Appellate Authority who held that the petitioner had made a contradictory claim in the application which he could not do. Accordingly he accepted the appeal and dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord has come up in revision against that order to this Court.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property to dispute is the rented land and the petitioner requires it for the purposes of his business. He further submits that he has not vacated such rented land after coming into force of the Act. According to the counsel, all the requirements of Sec. 13(3)(a)(ii) of the Act have been complied with and consequently the petitioner to entitled to order of ejectment against the tenant.;